The average temperatures of the first half of 2006 were the highest ever recorded for the continental United States, scientists announced today.

Temperatures for January through June were 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th-century average.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and Missouri experienced record warmth for the period, while no state experienced cooler-than-average temperatures, reported scientists from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. [Heat Map]

Scientists have previously said that 2005 was the warmest year on record for the entire globe.

***

I think we need to take global warming seriously. I'd rather risk wasting billions than risk leaving the children a catastrophe, and I also think the effort to fight global warming will result in new technologies and new jobs that will make it worth it.

The average temperatures of the first half of 2006 were the highest ever recorded for the continental United States, scientists announced today.

Temperatures for January through June were 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th-century average.

Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and Missouri experienced record warmth for the period, while no state experienced cooler-than-average temperatures, reported scientists from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. [Heat Map]

Scientists have previously said that 2005 was the warmest year on record for the entire globe.

***

I think we need to take global warming seriously. I'd rather risk wasting billions than risk leaving the children a catastrophe, and I also think the effort to fight global warming will result in new technologies and new jobs that will make it worth it.

Click to expand...

Very cold winter in Europe this years. Remember the roof collapse idue to tons of snow in Poland with many deaths due to the -25C temps.

The climate is a Global systems climatic variations within the system is normal. Were they growing grapes in New Foundland like during the time of Leif Erickson?

Year-to-year swings are bound to happen and don't prove global warming, but it's an objective fact that humans are releasing more CO2 into the air than in the past, and it's an objective fact that the atmosphere has a higher concentration of CO2 than it's had in a very long time (this is known from sediment samples and other concrete pieces of evidence). It's also a well-understood fact that a CO2 blanket around a planet increases the surface temperature due to heat retention. Now, reasonable people can disagree on how much of an impact this has, and reasonable people can disagree on what steps are reasonable to solve this problem - indeed if it needs solving - but reasonable people cannot disagree that global warming is real and happening today because of human technological advancement and rapid population growth. Can we all at least agree on that and argue with that established?

Year-to-year swings are bound to happen and don't prove global warming, but it's an objective fact that humans are releasing more CO2 into the air than in the past,

Click to expand...

agreed

and it's an objective fact that the atmosphere has a higher concentration of CO2 than it's had in a very long time (this is known from sediment samples and other concrete pieces of evidence).

Click to expand...

Depends on the definition of very long.

It's also a well-understood fact that a CO2 blanket around a planet increases the surface temperature due to heat retention. Now, reasonable people can disagree on how much of an impact this has, and reasonable people can disagree on what steps are reasonable to solve this problem - indeed if it needs solving - but reasonable people cannot disagree that global warming is real and happening today because of human technological advancement and rapid population growth. Can we all at least agree on that and argue with that established?

Click to expand...

How "well understood" CO2 levels and what their effect on the atmosphere are? I would disagree somewhat. The computer models are very incomplete. This is a complex, chaotic system and we don't really have the math to describe the interactions adequately IMO.

There is evidence that the earth is in a normal part of it's cycle (based on sunspot activity and solar radiation variations, secondary confirmation of these effects is the melting of the Martian polar 'ice caps' and the formation of another large storm (2nd Red spot) storm on Jupiter). If you look at long term temp (2million+ years) avgs (based on the core and sediment samples. the variations aren't close to being anything other than average.

BTW one thing that has scientist baffeled was that during the pre cambian warm period the artic ocean temp were in the 60's , it was a big lake, but the temps in the tropics were about the same as today.

The other thing is that it's not just the big, bad United States doing this. As other countries like China start driving more, the rest of the world will be contributing a lot and, yet, the onus falls back on us.

One thing that would help the gas prices is for the whole country to use the same gas instead of some states using different mixes to try to protect against air pollution. That's one of the big reasons CA has higher prices than most states, we can't just go out and buy gas from other states because it's the wrong gas.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0607/13/ldt.01.html
(NoTE: the end of this transcript has the discussion of wildfires and climate..)
Again..it is just a "liberal" issue..for global warming....and if there are pea brains that don't believe it...OR who try to politicize science all I can say is go back to your cave,, and get out of the way so the problem can be solved..
THAT was one thing mentioned in the transcript..how very little ie being done because of the "false science" put up by corporatations and others who are near sighted... Beyond that..it is obvious more heat, warming and wildfires running rampant certainly show that is the case. Soon hurricanes will be making more of an impact..like last year..this year..a conincidence??? I think not...

My doctor told me I was overweight, had high Colesterol and smoked too much. He said I'm a prime candidate for a heart attack in the future. I asked him when, he said soon. I asked him to give me a date and he couldn't. Years from now? Months from now? Decades from now? The Brie-eating egghead had no clue. I asked this quack how bad the heart attack would be and he looked at me like I had three heads.

Anyway I'm gonna have me another Steak wrapped in Bacon as soon as this odd tightness in my chest gos away. Must be gas.

Well that's fine but the fact is that Global Warming happens throughout time. Is it because of us this time ? Maybe, maybe not. It is a coincidence, which perhaps makes the Maybe arguement stronger than the Maybe Not. But there's also the question of what to do and just slamming the U.S. is wholly the wrong answer. There's a big world out there who mostly do what they want.

Well that's fine but the fact is that Global Warming happens throughout time. Is it because of us this time ? Maybe, maybe not. It is a coincidence, which perhaps makes the Maybe arguement stronger than the Maybe Not. But there's also the question of what to do and just slamming the U.S. is wholly the wrong answer. There's a big world out there who mostly do what they want.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt that there are warming cycles that are natural in the scope of things..no doubt...but the warming now is beyond those cycles..I think climatologists have established that without a doubt. And if you just do not care to see it..again that is OK. Because of special interests of the fossil fuel industry, the American public is confused and thinks this is really a debate..when 95% or more of climatologists and other scientists agree that global warming exists
and that humans are the large cause of that.
NASA's top climatologist, James Hansen, talked about this a few weeks ago...basically saying it's NOT a political issue, but a moral one...talking about 60% od species becoming extinct..and even if something is done having that at 20%. THAT is scary at best. But it is more than that?? He talked about how gas emissions not only have to be reduced, but quickly so, so that the tragectory of the rise of emissions is changed.. He also sees in a generation or so how the US could be involved in a sort of Nuremburg Trial and granchildrenhaving a burden of guilt for what happened to the planet.
Why?? Not only does the US contribute 30% of gasses to the problem, but also by discouraging treaties that would cause changes and influencing against this in many ways.

How "well understood" CO2 levels and what their effect on the atmosphere are? I would disagree somewhat. The computer models are very incomplete. This is a complex, chaotic system and we don't really have the math to describe the interactions adequately IMO.

Click to expand...

It may be hard to measure the actual impact, but directionally you have to figure: thicker blanket = more trapped heat.

OK, so we may contribute more than our share but according to your number (which I have no reason to not believe) 70% is caused by non U.S. nations. Which makes us a small part of the problem is absolute numbers.

Is there any other country in the world that contributes to the "Liberals Global Warming" besides "Bush's America"?

Why don't Al Gore and John Fonda Kerry drive Hyundia Accents?

Robert Kennedy Jr should trade in his private jet for a horse and wagon.

Liberals are digging their own graves with all their "silly sh!t".

:bricks:

Click to expand...

All the liberals you mentioned are rich, and we all know a rich liberal is a lot like a rich conservative. In the real world (somehow I get the impression you get your whole view of the world from TV these days), there are conscientious people - liberals and conservatives alike - who do what they can to help the environment. The made-for-TV liberals, nobody gives a sh!t about.

OK, so we may contribute more than our share but according to your number (which I have no reason to not believe) 70% is caused by non U.S. nations. Which makes us a small part of the problem is absolute numbers.

Click to expand...

30 is by far the largest share.... you keep wishing to deny it all..and..it's just hard to face the facts of it all...It's those libreerals that are causing this..It doesn't exist..it's not the US..don't blame me, it's others....just refusing to understand how serious it is..it's OK..If you have children..I think you need to think of what kind of a world you are setting up for them???

"The US has heavy legal and moral responsibilities for what is now happening. Of all the CO2 emissions produced from fossil fuels so far, we are responsible for almost 30 percent, an amount much larger than that of the next-closest countries, China and Russia, each less than 8 percent. Yet our responsibility and liability may run higher than those numbers suggest. The US cannot validly claim to be ignorant of the consequences. When nations must abandon large parts of their land because of rising seas, what will our liability be? And will our children, as adults in the world, carry a burden of guilt, as Germans carried after World War II, however unfair inherited blame may be?"

OK, so we may contribute more than our share but according to your number (which I have no reason to not believe) 70% is caused by non U.S. nations. Which makes us a small part of the problem is absolute numbers.

Click to expand...

Our share has nothing to do with it. Our share will go down in the next few decades as developing countries industrialize and begin to polute more themselves. Our share will be less, but the Earth will be much worse off nontheless. Polution knows no borders and unless we deal with this worldwide, though international agreements, we'll bicker until we die and our children will inherit one hell of a mess.

Our share has nothing to do with it. Our share will go down in the next few decades as developing countries industrialize and begin to polute more themselves. Our share will be less, but the Earth will be much worse off nontheless. Polution knows no borders and unless we deal with this worldwide, though international agreements, we'll bicker until we die and our children will inherit one hell of a mess.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree, I just disagree with how we're trying to do it. I'm tired of paying $50 a year for smog checks on new vehicles while trucks huff and puff away with black soot coming out. I'm tired of paying $.30 extra for a gallon of gas in CA due to our special low pollution mix.

When someone presents a real option - even a tax increase to go directly to alternative fuels - count me in. Until then I don't want to hear it.